Theresa may calls for tighter internet regulations after London attack

[Ben3991]

I notice how you've conveniently ignoredy post pointing out the massive difference in the chances of those things happening...

Victims of identity theft in the UK (figures from 2015 since they're the most recent ones I can find from a reputable source): 148,463 (bear in mind the real figure is probably higher, since those will just be the ones serious enough to have been reported to the police etc. and so that figure likely doesn't include relatively unimportant things like email/Facebook etc accounts being stolen)

https://www.cifas.org.uk/press_centre/criminals_target_UK_youth_as_dentity_fraud_rises

Can't actually find a solid source for the number of terrorist caused deaths, but this article suggests less than 100 for this year and last combined:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrorist-attacks-uk/amp/

So you're at least 1480 times more likely to be a victim of identity fraud than killed by a terrorist, a figure which would almost certainly rise if the methods of protecting yourself against identity fraud are removed.

Pretty sure you're more likely to die falling down the stairs than in a terror attack, shall we ban stairs?

I don't understand. I'm not disputing your more likely to be a victim of identify fraud than terrorism. I'm saying its better to a victim of identity theft rather than terrorism but some quite considerable margin and I wouldn't mind the increase of risk in identify fraud for the increase in my safety and others

*I accept that more stringent cyber rules have not been proved to stop and would not stop terrorsim completely. Saving one attack though, would be worth it.

 

[jpaul]

And then, naturally as is the course of these things, an ISP gets hacked, simply misplaces the data, or a disgruntled employee or just one who's out to make some money sells these keys to the highest bidder, and voila. You've backdoored the internet, broken encryption, and broken the internet.

the licensed keys have a perennity and compromised keys can be blacklisted

 

[Felon]

*I accept that more stringent cyber rules have not been proved to stop and would not stop terrorsim completely. Saving one attack though, would be worth it.

Unfortunately the inescapable reality, is that we have terrorists on channel 4 waving ISIS flags on documentaries, who go on to attack.

Surely, it's complete madness to pursue restrictions on encryption and internet privacy, when we can't catch people in plain sight, on the television, basically screaming to be arrested.

 

[Six6siX]

the licensed keys have a perennity and compromised keys can be blacklisted

And how quickly do you think that is likely to happen? How many people's data will be stolen before a breach is even noticed let alone blacklisted. Proactive prevention (i.e. security) is better than a cure.

 

[platypus]

the licensed keys have a perennity and compromised keys can be blacklisted

You're not talking from a position of knowledge on the subject really, are you?

 

[Haggisman]

the licensed keys have a perennity and compromised keys can be blacklisted

Great, so now we have multiple backdoors along with needing to keep every single encrypted system in the world in sync?

I don't understand. I'm not disputing your more likely to be a victim of identify fraud than terrorism. I'm saying its better to a victim of identity theft rather than terrorism but some quite considerable margin and I wouldn't mind the increase of risk in identify fraud for the increase in my safety and others.

It's also better to be in a car accident at 7mph than 70mph, but due to obvious practical reasons we dont have a ridiculously low speed limit...

Clearly you've never been a victim/been close to a victim of serious identity theft and had bailiffs knocking on your door to take your things & threating to repossess your home because someone has taken out ££££ of debt in your name and done a runner.

 

[Roar87]

Unfortunately the inescapable reality, is that we have terrorists on channel 4 waving ISIS flags on documentaries, who go on to attack.

Surely, it's complete madness to pursue restrictions on encryption and internet privacy, when we can't catch people in plain sight, on the television, basically screaming to be arrested.

No it isn't, nothing he said on Channel 4 could've been considered a crime or he would've been arrested. What might have got him arrested was being able to see his encrypted communications.

 

[Felon]

No it isn't, nothing he said on Channel 4 could've been considered a crime or he would've been arrested. What might have got him arrested was being able to see his encrypted communications.

I don't think you're able to see the wood for the trees...

It doesn't matter what he said, he was on a documentary about terrorism in plain sight, associating with terrorists, basically doing everything under the sun, that might make security officials start sweating - and he went on to successfully commit a terrorist attack. Channel 4 managed to be on the money, why weren't the security services?

If you can't stop that - when the intelligence is presented on a silver platter, (the guy is on camera) there's literally no hope, regardless of whether or not something he explicitly said, might or might not have been an arrestable offence.

To claim in spite of everything else - that he could only have been stopped, by obtaining even more evidence from his encrypted communications, is just stupid.

 

[Roar87]

I don't think you're able to see the wood for the trees...

It doesn't matter what he said, he was on a documentary about terrorism in plain sight, associating with terrorists, basically doing everything under the sun, that might make security officials start sweating - and he went on to successfully commit a terrorist attack. Channel 4 managed to be on the money, why weren't the security services?

If you can't stop that - when the intelligence is presented on a silver platter, (the guy is on camera) there's literally no hope, regardless of whether or not something he explicitly said, might or might not have been an arrestable offence.

The intelligence services are aware of thousands of people with similar views, but unless you can get some concrete evidence they can't do much about them. They don't have the resources to track all of them 24 hours a day, and people like you are giving them a safe hiding place to plan their attacks.

 

[Rroff]

No it isn't, nothing he said on Channel 4 could've been considered a crime or he would've been arrested. What might have got him arrested was being able to see his encrypted communications.

Except it doesn't work like that - as you said he was hiding what he was doing - why would he stop trying to hide what he was doing because you removed encryption?

 

[Haggisman]

people like you are giving them a safe hiding place to plan their attacks.

You really don't get it do you? Take away one "safe hiding place" and they'll just find/create another.

Meanwhile all the innocent law-abiding people you claim to want to protect get ****ed over when their personal information is leaked all over the internet.

 

[Spud21]

Well the worrying thing is that it is entirely possible to filter this traffic: you give the ISPs the keys of every licenced certificate. You want a licence? You give us your private key. Thereby creating the governments wet dream of backdooring encryption. It's so simple I'm surprised Amber Rudd hasn't suggested it - save for the fact that she doesn't know what an encryption key is of course.

And then, naturally as is the course of these things, an ISP gets hacked, simply misplaces the data, or a disgruntled employee or just one who's out to make some money sells these keys to the highest bidder, and voila. You've backdoored the internet, broken encryption, and broken the internet.

Even if they can do that would that stop someone for using RDP / or equivalent over non encrypted traffic to connect to a remote machine that is not in a place that wont allow e2e encryption and then run the encrypted communication from there? What would an ISP be able to see of the interaction between those machines? would it be able to log keystrokes for example?

 

[Felon]

The intelligence services are aware of thousands of people with similar views, but unless you can get some concrete evidence they can't do much about them. They don't have the resources to track all of them 24 hours a day, and people like you are giving them a safe hiding place to plan their attacks.

If these people are using encryption to hide things (almost a certainty) do you suddenly think that as soon as the encryption is disallowed, they'll rub their hands together and say "ah well, we'd best stop being naughty now" and by removing the so called 'safe space' that would be the end of it.

Stupidly niave

 

[Ben3991]

Great, so now we have multiple backdoors along with needing to keep every single encrypted system in the world in sync?



It's also better to be in a car accident at 7mph than 70mph, but due to obvious practical reasons we dont have a ridiculously low speed limit...

Clearly you've never been a victim/been close to a victim of serious identity theft and had bailiffs knocking on your door to take your things & threating to repossess your home because someone has taken out ££££ of debt in your name and done a runner.

No I haven't or been close to someone who has. But I stick to my point, I would prefer a bailiff at my door, which would eventually be resolved than being mowed down by a terrorist.

 

[Ben3991]

Unfortunately the inescapable reality, is that we have terrorists on channel 4 waving ISIS flags on documentaries, who go on to attack.

Surely, it's complete madness to pursue restrictions on encryption and internet privacy, when we can't catch people in plain sight, on the television, basically screaming to be arrested.

I completely agree with you. Nothing is worth putting in doing unless it will be acted on when a threat is found.

 

[Spud21]

No I haven't or been close to someone who has. But I stick to my point, I would prefer a bailiff at my door, which would eventually be resolved than being mowed down by a terrorist.

I think everyone would prefer that, however you have to consider that there have been roughly 100 deaths from terrorist attacks in this country since 11/9/2001, that's what, 6 deaths a year approx, in 2010 600 people died falling down the stairs, in the grand scheme of things horiffic as it may be Terrorists should really be the least of the average persons worries, should we really throw away civil liberties and privacy rights over something that is statistically 100 times less dangerous than a flight of stairs? That is assuming that this would prevent 100% of all deaths from terrorist attacks.

 

[Roar87]

If these people are using encryption to hide things (almost a certainty) do you suddenly think that as soon as the encryption is disallowed, they'll rub their hands together and say "ah well, we'd best stop being naughty now" and by removing the so called 'safe space' that would be the end of it.

Stupidly niave

No I think giving the intelligence services the powers to legally backdoor encrypted content and allow that evidence to be used to prosecute may take away the safe space. Encryption is almost entirely pointless anyway, any hackers with government backing can already see your content if they want to.

 

[Mynight]

No I think giving the intelligence services the powers to legally backdoor encrypted content and allow that evidence to be used to prosecute may take away the safe space. Encryption is almost entirely pointless anyway, any hackers with government backing can already see your content if they want to.

So instead of just government hackers you want to let all hackers do it?

 

[Roar87]

So instead of just government hackers you want to let all hackers do it?

Sorry I'll spell it out more clearly

- GCGQ/NSA can already see your encrypted content via various back doors and other methods if they so choose
- They cannot use it in court as the means they used to obtain it would be inadmissible
- I am suggesting we allow them to use this evidence

 

[Haggisman]

Encryption is almost entirely pointless anyway, any hackers with government backing can already see your content if they want to.

To reiterate my point above, if you believe this then you really don't know what you're talking about or understand encryption